That seems like kind of an odd commitment. I mean, a canal – which apparently counts, based on the article text – doesn’t really seem like much of an alternative to a park, which also counts. Most of the things one might do in one aren’t really things that one might do with the other.
And why is it specifically a walk? I can see “within N minutes of” being a metric for how hard it is to reach it, but surely if someone can bicycle or drive or whatever, it’d be about as accessible. I used to live within walking distance of a beach, but we tended to drive to another that was nicer and more-convenient.
FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 11 months ago
Oh dear did they realise they’d already signed up to 15 minute cities before using the term in the culture war?
TWeaK@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Well there is a reason the first city that trialled the 15 minute thing was in a Tory council area. That way they could couple it with making things terrible for cars, while not sufficiently providing public transport as a replacement. All of a sudden, what would only be a good social development providing more services nearby (that might also hamper large business’ control of retail markets) now became associated with something generally harmful to common people.
All a 15 minute city is supposed to achieve is sufficient access to general things (eg small shops and parks) spaced frequently enough for pedestrians with infrastructure (segregated paths) to safely travel between. It’s literally just the culmination of professional city planning philosophy. That doesn’t even mean cars need to have reduced access, just that their priority would be inherently lower - you wouldn’t need them as much. However, they structured the trials to portray it as something else. It’s basically what they did with the AV referendum, which is construed as support for the FTPF system.
FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 11 months ago
It seemed extremely suspicious to me at the time they required councils to do ltns or lose funding.
Even with all that has happened I still find it easier to believe different paeople in government had different goals, but I can’t disagree it looks a lot like forcing councils to do something they can use to mobilise their base.